The main point I am emphasising is one rule for USA, and another for the rest of the world. People like BakerStreet mention that terrorists should go on hunger strikes... If pakistan sent some troops and desicrated the USA, would the people of USA sit on their hands and starve to death?

Let's not mention the fact that hunger strikes get you no where.  Remember the '81 hunger strikes by IRA prisoners fighting to be recognized as political prisioners and not ordinary decent criminals?  Of course not, you weren't even born, were you?  Anyway, Thatcher let Bobby Sands and 9 other die refusing to negotiate.  The lesson that was learned was that nonviolence doesn't get you any further than violence.  No concessions were going to be made by the British Government, and in the meantime 10 "volunteers" perished.  (On an aside:  Everyone should read Nor Meekly Serve My Time.  It's an incredible account from inside the H-Block during the strikes.  Whether or not you agree with the IRA, the book certainly sheds light on their perspective and motives).

Muggaz, the double standard is stronger than you're stating.  Look at the IRA again.  Where do they get their funding from? Until 9/11 it was predominantly coming from the US.  It's sad that we Americans had little problem throwing some money into a tip jar in a 'RA bar in NYC knowing full well that the money was not being added to the Republican Library Fund.  So why, after supporting armed struggle elsewhere did we expect the world to mourn with us on 9/11.  I was actually in Belfast on 9/11 and I can't tell you the number of times that I was greeted with, "yes, it's a very sad day, but now you know how we feel, what we've been going through."  It was a startling wake up call.

It all just leads me back to the question: "who decides who is a terrorist?"  I haven't got the answer, though I've attempted to answer it twice in blogs.  The first met with bitter critism accusing me of "giving terrorists ideas."  The other has been virtually ignored.   

History.

History is the only judge of a terrorist and a patriot, because in the present they can be both. A person is judged a freedom fighter/terrorist based on the society they are working against. To us John Adams is a patriot, working to bring forth a new nation. To the english he was a traitor to the crown. A treasonous man of the highest order.

IG

p.s. And to quote 1776: A rebellion is always legal in the first person such as our rebellion. It is only illegal in the third person, their rebellion.

Muggaz: I think your weed habit has damaged too many brain cells so I'm going to be brief here and then not respond again since there's really no point trying to discuss this with you since you seem incapable of reading words people write and understanding them.

1) I didn't imply that you were happy that people died on 9/11.

2) I never implied that people don't have a reason or a right to have hostile feelings towards the United States.

My position is pretty simple: Being mad or politically opposed doesn't give you the right to murder someone.  I don't agree with your political positions but not only do I choose not to have you killed, I tolerate them by giving you a vehicle to express them to thousands of other people.

The blame for people who murder other people lies with the ones doing the murdering.

Brad,
What about this for a scenario then:

Picture a Honduran large Honduran village in 1984. alive and bristling with vibrance and colour one minute.... A scene of carnage the next A government squad of highly trained soldiers suspect that the village has been harbouring anti government sympathisers. They round up the villages, torture them and then slaughter them all with submachine guns, machettes even clubs (men, women and children alike) as a lesson to other villages. It is quickly learned that the government squad is funded and trained by the CIA and that it's leader learned his advanced at the 'School of Americas' What do you think the feelings of the population would be towards the US?

Before anyone describes this as fanciful, I met a friend from Peru just after 9/11...her reaction was: "Its sad, but maybe now they know how it feels."

That should read:

It is quickly learned that the government squad is funded and trained by the CIA and that it's leader learned his advanced 'interrogation' techniques at the 'School of Americas'

one day I will learn how to drive a computer

I haven't blamed anyone Brad - I have blamed policy.

My position is pretty simple: Being mad or politically opposed doesn't give you the right to invade someones country.

BAM!!!

just in our own hemisphere or do you want to expand that question further? which period of time?

The question stands as is. Name the "rogue crime syndicate", the date (or time period), and the country attacked by "our" terrorists. Now preferably, (since I didn't mention it before you can choose to ingnore this) demonstrate how these examples help to establish Muggaz' hypothetical. My contention is that Muggaz' scenario has not contextual basis in reality.

VES

Contextual basis or not... it doesn't matter... My point has not escaped anyone.. It doesn't matter what anyone does or how they react to this hypothetical... you can bet your bottom dollar that the US wouldn't be invaded though, and that if they were attacked, the retribution would be un-fathomable.

BAM!!!

I wrote that in Northern Ireland I was told:

"yes, it's a very sad day, but now you know how we feel, what we've been going through."

Gerry Attrick wrote that a Peruvian friend told him:

"Its sad, but maybe now they know how it feels."

If this is such a common response, why aren't we (America) understanding it? 

Muggaz and Brad:  The blame game is not going to get anyone anywhere.  Terrorism is currently a fact of life on this globe.  The question is, how do we deal with it?  In order to deal with it, we need to understand it.  We can't fight this nontraditional enemy with traditional warfare; it just won't work.  If we are going to use violence and warfare (ie. Brad's preferred method) we are going to have to be as cunning as the terrorist that we are fighting.  However, there is a strong possibility that this will cause an intractable arrangement.  Will violent responses simply breed more terrorists who conduct more violent attacks?  It's very likely.  If we aren't going to use violence (ie. Muggaz's choosen path), what are we going to do?  We can't simply sit back and do nothing, and we are definitely not going to concede the Western way of life to appease terrorists.  But, there has to be a middle ground. 

With regard to the retired soldiers attack on Pakistan (the original scenario of the post) would the US would then be held partially culpable,

It's really immaterial as to whether they would be held culpable. Who would it be that would hold them culpable? At the very least, Pakistan may choose to hold the US culpable, hence my answer to the original question which is above in case you missed it. I never presumed that they needed to ask for those responsible prior to retaliation, so it goes without saying that if they ask and we refuse, the option of attack is still viable.

That said, I don't think the scenario is plausible, not even remotely. Hypotheticals with no basis in reality are useless.

VES

Contextual basis or not... it doesn't matter...

Yes, reality doesn't matter. I understand now.

VES

Shades.... even though I dont have a God, I know you do... and may he bless you.

The middle ground is what I am searching for - because the terrorists need to know it's not ok to kill people.. just like the US needs to know it's not ok to have its way with the whole world.

Thanks heaps Shades

BAM!!!

even though I dont have a God, I know you do

I do?

yeah - ME

hehe BAM!!!

uh...sure, Muggaz...whatever you want to believe! 

I am coming late to the party here Muggaz but my opinion of what Pakistan would/should do in the face of this would be : What ever they pleased. Just like our response to it should be. If we as a society had allowed our "rogue" elements to commit such an act *then* we would deserve to reap the penalties associated with failing to live up to *our* end of the social contract. The "silent majority" gets no pass from me. Contain your societies shitheads or reap the whirlwind of other nations reactions. The US would clearly have fucked up at this point in your scenario. (glad I helped you over the 40 comment hurdle)

Thanks Greywar...

It matters not... I have posted well over 20 comments and an article in a number of articles over the past 24 hours, and I have quite a lot less than when I began!!! Thats the price for disagreeing with the masses!!! hehe... I think it's funny!I am really glad people like Shades came and had some input though... and yourself...

I cant reiterate enough how much I want terrorism to end... and public forums like this are a good vehicle of said discussions...

BAM!!!

Muggaz,
while I support your inversion of Brad's hypotetical thread there are a nuimber of big flaws in your suggestion.

Firstly there would not be big marches in favour of the action. There would be widespread shock and horror.
Secondly the International Rogue Crime Syndicate blame is a bit tenuous.

A much more plausible situation would be the possibility of ex military personel from the current Iraq war were behind this to revenge the horriffic deaths of titrured US soldiers. I expect there were plenty of people in the US who's reaction to Nick Bergs death was 'nuke em'.

I believe that Pakistan's reaction would be to ask the US to hand over those responsible. Pakistan has shown a clear ability to take actions against the emotional demands of it's populations, and to take those actions it determines are best for it's survival. The US would also be requested to provide some serious form of compensation as it was it's weapon. Individual muslims around the world though would probably take action against unprotected Americans.

Paul.

alright Mug... since we're all playing the hypothetical game, and drawing up these scenarios, let me ask you this:  what would you have the U.S. do in response to 9/11?  Since you're not in favor of us removing Saddam from power, or hunting down Bin Laden, what is it that you would have us do instead? 

You've made numerous references to our 'foreign policy', and how poor it is.  What would you suggest?  How should we handle things so that the world will view us more favourably?  What would you have us do so that the folks in the Middle East will miraculously stop hating us & everything that we stand for? 

Don't bother bringing the prison abuse scandal into this, we all know that was a fucked up situation...

BAM! You're a member of Congress for a day, what do you propose?! 

MJ - you dont want to know... this is a can of worms you dont want opened on this particular occasion. I have actually spoken to youu before about 9/11 counter action!

I have had enough thinking, and its Friday night.. brain switch off till monday

Have a good weekend bro

BAM!!!

Have a good weekend bro BAM!!!

you too... we'll talk about this next week...

alright Mug... since we're all playing the hypothetical game, and drawing up these scenarios, let me ask you this: what would you have the U.S. do in response to 9/11? Since you're not in favor of us removing Saddam from power, or hunting down Bin Laden, what is it that you would have us do instead?

Are you saying that removing Saddam from power was a response to 9/11? If so, how are they related? What was Saddam's role in the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?

Your article makes a great point!

I have had enough thinking, and its Friday night.. brain switch off till monday

MAke sure you dont abuse so many substances that the brain switch back on friend. Then I would only have OG San or the likes of St. Ying to wrangle with.